Carpet-Bombing Slowdown: Five Day Lag Between Mailers



(Editor’s Note: This is the second pro Proposition 16 to arrive within five days. Here is the first one, which is similar.

Proposition 16 would require a two-thirds vote before cities or counties could contract with an electricity provider other than the investor-owned utility that would otherwise serve that local area. San Francisco and Yolo County have both explored this option. Both are in the Pacific Gas & Electric service area.

Pacific Gas & Electric is the chief financial backer of Proposition 16, a constitutional amendment that would require a two-thirds vote of local voters before such a contract, known as a “community choice aggregation” could be entered into. The measure also makes it harder for publicly owned utilities such as the Sacramento Municipal Utilities District, to compete for such contracts. Under Proposition 16, public utilities are prevented from expanding into new territory unless there is both a two-thirds vote of its existing customers and those in the area it proposes to serve. SMUD was the entity Yolo considered contracting with to create its community choice aggregation.

According to Ballotpedia, as of March 26, PG&E has contributed $28.5 million to the campaign.

While investor-owned utilities such as PG&E can use shareholder money to finance such campaigns, publicly owned utilities can’t. Opponents, as of March 26, have raised $40,000.)


Filed under: Politics


  1. Thank goodness I am not on their preferred mailing list — I only get one of these about once every two weeks. Go ahead, spend your millions. People hate being flooded with mailers.

    Comment by PasadenaVoter — 4.20.2010 @ 4:30 pm

  2. Correction: PG&E is not the “chief financial backer” of Proposition 16. PG&E is the ONLY financial backer of Proposition 16! They hit the $34.5 million mark last week (with a budget of $35 million) with 7 weeks to go before Election Day! Apparently, trying to propagandize voters into eliminating competition for their monopoly may cost more than PG&E originally thought. Just another rate increase, I guess.

    This is the same company that paid its CEO 74% more than the median for large utility CEOs in 2009, according to the Wall Street Journal compensation survey — 8% more than the CEO of Goldman Sachs!


    Comment by John Geesman, former California Energy Commissioner, 2002-08 — 4.20.2010 @ 7:47 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a comment